[rpd] inputs on AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-04 - Policy Development Process Bis

[Frank Habicht]

Hi,

On 20/05/2019 20:46, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> 
>> On May 18, 2019, at 5:05 AM, Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On 17/05/2019 21:06, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
>> ...> 3) The consensus is determined only in the meeting (there is no
>>> timing for the discussion in the list) and consequently there is not
>>> a way to determine consensus from the list.
>>
>> I read
>> "At the end of meeting or after the adoption phase of a policy proposal,
>> the Chairs will decide if the working group has reached consensus within
>> 2 weeks."
>> as meaning that the PDWG chairs have the possibility to do declare
>> consensus in the meeting without asking the mailing list.
>>
>> And I don't like it.
>> So much that I had to drop everything and voice my opposition to this
>> proposed change.
>>
>> Please note: I also think that all the other points Jordi raises are
>> very valid and important. But this one is a very big change. And as
>> mentioned, I oppose.
>>
>> If someone wants my proposal for improvement of this one part:
>> replace
>> "At the end of meeting or after the adoption phase of a policy proposal,
>> the Chairs will decide if the working group has reached consensus within
>> 2 weeks."
>>
>> with
>> "At the end of a meeting the chairs may pronounce their intentions, in
>> case there are no further substation developments regarding this policy
>> on the mailing list.
> 
> May I suggest that the word “substantive” replace “substation” in the preceding
> paragraph?

Yes. absolutely. My bad.

>> A final review of the draft policy is initiated by the Working Group
>> Chair(s) by sending an announcement to the Resource Policy Discussion
>> mailing list, preferably as soon as possible after the Public Policy
>> Meeting. The Last Call period shall be at least two weeks. The Working
>> Group Chair(s) shall evaluate the feedback received during the Public
>> Policy Meeting and during this period and decide whether consensus has
>> been achieved.”
> 
> I support this proposed language. I would, however, like to augment it as follows:
> 
> “Any substantial objection to a proposal during this last call period must be
> fully and adequately addressed prior to a determination of consensus.”

I agree.
Frank


> 
> Owen
> 
>